Page images

of Manasseh, he and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan until the day of the captivity of the land." The proper name Manasseh stands thus in the common Masoretic text op, with a marginal note calling attention to nun suspended. Another reading drops the nun, and has simply man, Moses. The inquiry then is, which of the two is the right reading?

In favour of do are 744 of De Rossi at first, as also two others, a prima manu. Jerome has it, and therefore the present Vulgate. It would also appear that some copies of the Greek version formerly read Moses. Four in Paris, one in the Vatican, and an octateuch belonging to University College, Oxford, have it. All other MSS. and versions have the received reading, the only difference in the MSS. being that 27, 9 a prima manu, and thirty-three editions have the letter nun inserted in its place; 16, and one a prima manu, present it in a little larger size than the other letters of the word; while the greater number of manuscript copies have it suspended. The weight of authority immensely preponderates in favour of Manasseh.

• Yet, notwithstanding the external evidence for Manasseh, it is likely that the other is the right reading. It is related in the Talmud that this Gershom was the son of Moses : but that, on account of his son Jonathan's idolatrous conduct, he is called the son of Manasseb by inserting nun. Rabbi Tanchum attests the same thing, saying that the name was written with nun suspended, because Jonathan's conduct was unsuited to the dignity of Moses, and consonant to that of Manasseh. In like manner Rabbi Solomon Ben Melek, quoted by Norzi, says, that the nun is redundant, because he was the son of Moses. Thus this tradition of the Jews is ancient and uniform. And it is likely to be true, because it is a testimony against themselves. They confess honestly that a letter was added, and they give the reason of it. It was the honour of Moses which led them to make Jonathan, the first priest of idolatry, not a grandson of the great lawgiver, but a grandson of Manasseh. The nun must have been written very early with the name, as it is in all the most ancient versions.'

* Matthero xxvi. 35, 36. “ΓΊνα πληρωθή το ρηθέν υπό του προφήτου: διεμερίσαντο τα ιμάτιά μου εαυτοίς, και επί τον ιματισμόν μου έβαλον κλήρον.] και καθήμενοι έτήρουν αυτόν εκεί.

• The words enclosed in brackets are omitted in many authorities.

!1. They are wanting in all the uncial MSS. except Å, such as A. B. D. E. F. G, H, K, L, M. S. U. V. and a great many cursive ones enumerated by Scholz. They are also wanting in a number of evangelistaria.

2. They are not in the old Syriac, at least in the MSS. of it, and in some editions also; and hence à note in the margin of the later Syriac states that they are not in the old Syriac nor in two (or three] Greek copies. Neither are they found in the Arabic of the Polyglott, the Persic of Wheloc, the Memphitic, Sahidic, Ethiopic, Sclavonic. They are also wanting in many MSS. of the Vulgate, as well as the Sixtine edition; and in many MSS. of the old Latin, among which is the cod. Brixianus.

'3. Chrysostom, Titus of Bostra, Euthymius, Theophylact, Origen, Hilary, Augustine, Juvenius omit them. On the strength of this ancient evidence, the passage is rightly expunged from the editions of Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf. The testimony in favour of the passage is quite unimportant, consisting of A and a great number of cursive MSS., some MSS. of the old Latin and Vulgate, Philoxenian, Syriac, the Jerusalem-Syriac, the Arabic of the Roman edition, the Persian of the Polyglott and Armenian versions. Thus external evidence is decisive against the passage. It seems to have been at first a marginal annotation borrowed from John xix. 24, and afterwards taken into the text. Scholz,

however, calls attention to the fact, that no other evangelist except Matthew uses the formula να πληρωθή το ρηθέν, and that διά for υπό, which the Latin version appears to have had in the original whence it was taken, is conformable to Matthew's usual manner.'

This is a case of assimilative accretion, infecting a large proportion of the later MSS. It serves also to illustrate an advantage arising from the existence of distinguishable families in the assurance afforded by the concurrent testimony of two witnesses, which, in the present instance, unite by the voice of their older documents.

It is presumed that an unwillingness to extend the work too far, set a limit to this portion of it; otherwise, a similar treatment of every passage where the sense is materially affected by various readings, would have been serviceable, and might stiil form a supplement; since, to use the author's own words, • when one is put in possession of all the evidence, he will be • able to judge himself of those portions, without the uncer* tainty of having to rely on the reports of others.'

The criticism of the text is, perhaps, for a single individual, a sufficient field of labour, though the general commentator must include it in his field of knowledge. Dr. Davidson suggests a further division of labour, when he says, “We should rather see the collator and the editor of the text dissociated.' There is some truth in this, and for this particular reason. One who has been scanning every feature of a few ancient documents, or dimly tracing the shadowy forms of venerable uncials beneath a homily of Ephrem or Augustine, may become somewhat spell-bound by these his familiars. Again, another who has made inroads into the less trodden realm of more recent and numerous cursives, may catch a spirit of championship for a region of neglect. However, this travail hath God given to the sons of man.' If the thought arises why it should be so, while we would be mistrustful of meeting the entire question with others of its kind, we may venture on a partial answer, that it tends to maintain that activity of mind which, if duly chastened, is as wholesome in sacred matters as profane.

"Pater Ipse -
Haud facilem esse viam voluit, -

- curis acuens mortalia corda,
Nec torpere gravi passus sua regna veterno.'


-ART. V.-1. Lectures on the Apocalypse. By CHRISTOPHER

WORDSWORTH, D.D. Rivingtons. 1849. [First Edition]. 2. Horce Apocalypticæ, or a Commentary on the Apocalypse. By

the Rev. E. B. ELLIOTT, M.A. late Fellow of Trinity Coll.

Cambridge. 3 vols. London. 1844. [First Edition.] 3. Commentary on the Apocalypse. By MOSES STUART, Professor

of Sacred Literature at Andover, Mass. 1845. 2 vols. 4. Die Offenbarung Johannis erklärt. Von Dr. Th. F.J. ZÜLLIG,

Stadtpfarrer in Heidelberg. Stutgard. 1834. 2 vols. 5. Die Offenbarung Johannis. Von E. W. HENGSTENBERG, Pro

fessor der Theologie in Berlin Berlin. 1849. 2 vols. 6. The Interpretation of the Apocalypse. By W. H. Scott, M.A.

late Fellow of Brazenose. London. 1853. 7. The Apocalypse, with Notes and Reflections. By the Rev. ISAAC

WILLIAMS, B.D., late Fellow of Trinity. Oxford. 8. Six Discourses on the Prophecies relating to Antichrist. By

J. H. TODD, D.D., Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin.

Rivingtons. 1846. 9. Spiritual Exposition of the Apocalypse. By the Rev. AUG.

CLISSOLD, M.À., formerly of Exeter College, Oxford. London. 1851. 4 vols. 10. Christ's Second Coming : will it be Premillennial? By the Reo.

David BROWN, A.M., of James's Free Church, Glasgow.

Edinburgh. 1848. The writers whom we have above enumerated show that explanations of the Book of Revelations are as popular as ever with the people of England. Of one hundred commentaries on this difficult subject, which had appeared among the opponents of the Church of Rome before the time of Grotius, he tells us that eighty had been published in England (Epistle 895). What can witness more clearly to the same taste than that not only has a second edition appeared of Dr. Wordsworth's work, which might in part be owing to his previous reputation, but that even the ponderous volumes of Mr. Elliott have been republished ? Nor is it so strange as it might appear at first sight, that such a work as the last should find purchasers. True, the shelves on which it is placed have to be cleared of the accumulated mass of Faber and Cunningham, of Frere and Gauntlet; but it must be remembered that those who watch for the fall of the Beast require a perpetual succession of new works, as those who speculate in stocks require a daily newspaper. The writers whom we have mentioned have become superannuated, because time, the great instructor, has proved their predictions to be erroneous, Eventus stultorum magister. Meanwhile there has arisen another generation to gaze on the prophetic horizon

• Which like the circle bounding earth and skies,

Allures from far, but as we follow, flies.' What should such persons do, unless there were new books like Mr. Elliott's, to keep pace with the century ? Already has time overtaken even this last writer,' and he must reconstruct his calculation that the Turks will be expelled from Europe in 1849 (Elliott, p. 1]50). To be corrected to the last moment is as essential to the popular interpretations of prophecy, as it is to guide-books. Whiston, as Moses Stuart tells us, showed, • as he believed from the Book of Daniel, that a prophetic day “must mean a year. In his Essay on the Recelation (1706), he

assigned the return and coming of Christ to the year 1715. • When this time had passed, without any tokens of fulfilment,

he renewed his calculations, and brought out 1766. But as he died in 1752, he had no opportunity to correct, for a third time, the dates which he had twice brought out with a kind of ! mathematical assurance. But the experiment has been renewed

nearly every five or ten years since, in the English world and ‘in the United States. This very year we, in this country, have

passed the boundary assigned by a large number of enthusiasstic men for the coming of the Lord. But all this avails

nothing with individuals of an enthusiastic stamp. As soon as one period has disappointed their calculations, they com'mence de novo with a determination to find another. Generally * the last period on which they fix is beyond their probable ‘natural life. In this way they avoid the vexation of another • disappointment.' (Stuart, vol. i. p. 469.)

We are not surprised, therefore, if the Commentary of Elliott has been circulated by thousands, or that of Cumming by tens of thousands. Their present popularity is proportioned to the shortness of their reign. Those who have calculated the Succession Tax bave laid it down that property is held, on an average, for 35 years. But we cannot give Mr. Elliott's theory a longer time than he allows to continental Europe. He fixes

me one perich individhning of the large in

. We have employed the first editions both of Mr. Elliott and Dr. Wordsworth.

The predicted overthrow of the Turks may possibly have been corrected, in a later edition, after the manner of Whiston.

[ocr errors]

innatarha ve made must be liat, and then he worn

[ocr errors]

the year 1865, or thereabouts, as the probable epoch of the consummation,' p. 1421. By this time, if we understand him rightly, the fate of Rome, comprehending not the mere city of • Rome, but, at least, the Papal Ecclesiastical State in Italy,

and Papal Metropolitan Bishoprick, together, perhaps, with that "third, too, out of the political tripartitions of Christendom...

is to be effected by the sudden and tremendous agency of an * earthquake and volcanic fire,' (Elliott, pp. 1271 and 1445.) We are very conscious that, in twelve years, the hand which pens these remarks may be still in the grave, and the eyes which peruse them may be darkened. We speak, therefore, in no spirit of lightness, but merely give utterrance to an obvious truth, when we say that if that period passes away as the preceding ones have done, those whose taste is in such works, must be prepared to purchase a new Elliott, and the learned and elaborate volumes before us must be laid aside like their forerunners. · We have made these remarks by way of correcting the not unnatural presumption that the works on this subject, which have been most widely diffused, are likely to be the best. On the contrary, they will often be found to be the most ephemeral. But before proceeding to the separate consideration of the volumes before us, we wish to arrange them into classes, and to point out the several principles on which they are constructed. For there are four principal schools into which the commentators on the Apocalypse may he divided. The first is the Patristic, the authority of which has been lately vindicated by Mr. Maitland, in his • Apostles' School of Interpretation, and of which we have an admirable example in the volume of the Rev. Isaac Williams. We consider this to be one of the best books on the Revelation which has been published for many years in England; and if it does not recommend itself to itching ears, by predicting the exact period of those events, the time whereof knoweth no man, not even the angels of God;' yet for the same reason it does not carry with it the seeds of its own refutation.

The principle of this Patristic school was to regard the Apocalypse as a series of pictures, which might be applied to any events to which they were found to be analogous. It was the natural mode of interpretation, while the Church was guided only by its general insight into God's will, superadded to the explanations of individual emblems which occur in some of the prophets. And it will be found to harmonize well enough with a second, which we may call the Futurist school, of which Dr. Maitland and Dr. Todd may be considered the leaders, by which almost all the events of this book are postponed to an indefinitely future period. Those who take this

« PreviousContinue »